Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-18-2016, 12:21 PM   #151
Site Supporter
Zygonyx's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Ile de France
Posts: 3,072
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
That is actually pretty awesome....

More important to me, having established that I like the K-1 to 3200 ISO, the K-70 looks better at 3200 ISO than the K-1 does... excellent for detail in birding and macros..or anywhere you need to keep your shutter speed up... and completely negating the FF low light noise advantage.

The leaves the sole domain of the K-1 as resolution. With this noise reduction system, K-1 AF, and 8-10 fps, the next APS-c system should be a knockout.

K-1 on the left...
I can see that "better" means actually less details for your eyes.
And don't forget IR works on JPEG's SOOC only.
So, may i strongly desagree with such a conclusion...

10-18-2016, 12:34 PM   #152
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,841
QuoteOriginally posted by Zygonyx Quote
I can see that "better" means actually less details for your eyes.
And don't forget IR works on JPEG's SOOC only.
So, may i strongly desagree with such a conclusion...
I have already established both theoretically and demonstrated with images, that a K-3 produces more detail when the image is cropped. SO for uses like birding, macro, anything where the subject matter is far enough away to exceed the reach of your lens, the K-3 gives you better subject resolution using the same lens.

And I pointed out that the sole domain of the the K-1 remind resolution on uncropped images.

IR also provides raw files, you just have to click on the right link, and gives resolution numbers for both raw and jpeg files...

So while you strongly disagree, you might change your mind if you had your facts straight.
10-18-2016, 12:50 PM   #153
Site Supporter
Zygonyx's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Ile de France
Posts: 3,072
Euh, what's the relation with noise in high ISO ?

And please, don't feel obliged to discuss, i will leave better.
10-18-2016, 02:14 PM   #154
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Tromsø, Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 955
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
With this noise reduction system, K-1 AF, and 8-10 fps, the next APS-c system should be a knockout.
I believe a similar noise reduction system will be implemented into future new cameras as well, regardless of sensor size. Constantly improved.

QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
Or is it noise reduction in the camera, even with raw?
It seems to me that it is raw noise reduction. I wonder if we could get a similar result from manipulating K-3II raws. I guess the tricks used are a better edge detection method, that are less prone to bayer induced edge color artifacts. More desaturation to reduce color noise at the cost of colors. (irrelevant for B/W test patterns, they just look better). And some frequency-dependent noise reduction (look at the fur in the test images).

10-18-2016, 09:45 PM - 1 Like   #155
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Utah
Posts: 343
Thread officially derailed...
10-19-2016, 05:29 AM - 1 Like   #156
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,841
QuoteOriginally posted by ofer4 Quote
Thread officially derailed...
The thread was officially derailed when it started off with "please allow" as if there is some Pentax engineer somewhere with knowledge just dying to implement these things and Pentax won't "allow " him to do the implementation, which as far as I know is a complete mis-representation of the facts If the attempt of some of us to steer folks into some sort of semblance of reality you're right, that's our bad. But a couple points

Before you start something like this, make sure what you ask for is possible
Frame your question honestly
Expect people to suggest solutions to the perceived problem that are based on current reality.

Based on current info, this thread asks folks to waste their time , thinking about and asking for the impossible. That's simply irresponsible.
People can do so if they want. Others have the right to introduce a little sanity into the conversation if they so choose.

The whining and crying over in the Canon camp when they introduced new tech was pretty much the same. These requests for old tech to be made to work with every new lens pretty much fall on deaf ears.

Just trying to help out here.
10-19-2016, 06:58 PM   #157
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Montréal QC
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,826
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
... (bla bla) which as far as I know is a complete mis-representation of the facts... (bla bla) ...
Neither you nor I know the actual facts here, so obviously you must be right, and therefore should feel smug about derailing the thread. Congrats.
10-19-2016, 09:37 PM   #158
Site Supporter
geomez's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Preskitt Arizona
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,684
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
The thread was officially derailed when it started off with "please allow" as if there is some Pentax engineer somewhere with knowledge just dying to implement these things and Pentax won't "allow " him to do the implementation, which as far as I know is a complete mis-representation of the facts If the attempt of some of us to steer folks into some sort of semblance of reality you're right, that's our bad. But a couple points

Before you start something like this, make sure what you ask for is possible
Frame your question honestly
Expect people to suggest solutions to the perceived problem that are based on current reality.

Based on current info, this thread asks folks to waste their time , thinking about and asking for the impossible. That's simply irresponsible.
People can do so if they want. Others have the right to introduce a little sanity into the conversation if they so choose.

The whining and crying over in the Canon camp when they introduced new tech was pretty much the same. These requests for old tech to be made to work with every new lens pretty much fall on deaf ears.

Just trying to help out here.
Fact: none of us know what can and cannot be done.

Is KAF4 hardware based to the extent that cameras older than the K-3II cannot support it? Is it a software issue and Ricoh is intentionally preventing those older cameras from being supported?

No one knows!

I "signed" this petition specifically because I want the feature on my K-3 and I frankly have no idea whether or not it's possible. But being an optimist, and given the immense amount of similarities between the K-3 and K-3 II, I have chosen to "waste their (my) time", which was about a minute, to offer my support to this collective voicing of our opinions.

Lastly, from all I read of Ricoh's statements at Photokina, they stated frequently that they listen to their customers, and value their input.

Well... this one's for them.


Last edited by geomez; 10-19-2016 at 09:38 PM. Reason: misppeling
10-19-2016, 10:51 PM - 1 Like   #159
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,703
Where normhead is right is that getting Pentax changing its mind is quite unlikely even if technically that's possible. Simply because Pentax need to make money by selling cameras and so they need to convince us we need the latest one.

Still I fail to see why we could not ask based solely on normhead judgement.

As for the high iso K70/K1/K3 this is always the problem of cropping. All theses camera are made to use the full sensor area when you take photos and that's exactly what allows much better high iso performance for the FF. Nothing else. If you need heavy crop, that doesn't help, but that was known from the start. I think normhead knew it, as we all know it. In many occasions, one doesn't require an heavy crop, but get the right framing with the lens he own. Whatever the practice. In fact, that's what bring you the best photos because you use your gear to its best. In that case, if you can also accept less dof, the FF bring you much better high iso, and if you can't the FF give you better resolution.

That's up to you to use your gear to its best, whatever the practice. To think that even for wildlife or sport people perform heavy crop all the time is quite naive. If you can't afford the gear, or if you didn't manage to get near enough. That may happen. But this is a quite specific use and outside of a few practices, this almost never happen.

A wildlife shot, HD55-300, 300mm, no crop


Last edited by Nicolas06; 10-19-2016 at 11:06 PM.
10-20-2016, 06:05 AM   #160
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,841
Ask away, I actually don't have any power, except a bit of cold hard logic, to prevent anyone from doing anything. Knock yourselves out.
10-20-2016, 07:37 AM   #161
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,382
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Where normhead is right is that getting Pentax changing its mind is quite unlikely even if technically that's possible. Simply because Pentax need to make money by selling cameras and so they need to convince us we need the latest one.

Still I fail to see why we could not ask based solely on normhead judgement.

As for the high iso K70/K1/K3 this is always the problem of cropping. All theses camera are made to use the full sensor area when you take photos and that's exactly what allows much better high iso performance for the FF. Nothing else. If you need heavy crop, that doesn't help, but that was known from the start. I think normhead knew it, as we all know it. In many occasions, one doesn't require an heavy crop, but get the right framing with the lens he own. Whatever the practice. In fact, that's what bring you the best photos because you use your gear to its best. In that case, if you can also accept less dof, the FF bring you much better high iso, and if you can't the FF give you better resolution.

That's up to you to use your gear to its best, whatever the practice. To think that even for wildlife or sport people perform heavy crop all the time is quite naive. If you can't afford the gear, or if you didn't manage to get near enough. That may happen. But this is a quite specific use and outside of a few practices, this almost never happen.

A wildlife shot, HD55-300, 300mm, no crop

Indeed! We are petitioning Pentax to improve their old cameras and Pentax is petitioning us to buy their new cameras. Does either side listen?

What makes me suspect that KAF4 isn't a software fix is the economics. KAF4 provides no "free" benefits to the user -- the user must pay Ricoh for KAF4 lens to use the feature. I don't know the gross profits on camera bodies versus lenses but would assume that lenses do make money (some believe that's where camera makers make the most money). Adding KAF4 to the older bodies may delay some purchases of newer bodies but it would certainly sell more lenses. If camera makers make the most money on lenses, they'd happily offer software for older bodies that sold more new lenses. But so far Ricoh has not done this which makes me suspect they can't.
10-20-2016, 07:42 AM - 1 Like   #162
Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Liverpool, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 12,869
QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
Indeed! We are petitioning Pentax to improve their old cameras and Pentax is petitioning us to buy their new cameras. Does either side listen?

What makes me suspect that KAF4 isn't a software fix is the economics. KAF4 provides no "free" benefits to the user -- the user must pay Ricoh for KAF4 lens to use the feature. I don't know the gross profits on camera bodies versus lenses but would assume that lenses do make money (some believe that's where camera makers make the most money). Adding KAF4 to the older bodies may delay some purchases of newer bodies but it would certainly sell more lenses. If camera makers make the most money on lenses, they'd happily offer software for older bodies that sold more new lenses. But so far Ricoh has not done this which makes me suspect they can't.
But, since Ricoh won't say why they won't or can't update the K-3 and older cameras, all we have is a useless speculation thread.
10-20-2016, 09:08 AM   #163
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,982
QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
Indeed! We are petitioning Pentax to improve their old cameras and Pentax is petitioning us to buy their new cameras. Does either side listen?

What makes me suspect that KAF4 isn't a software fix is the economics. KAF4 provides no "free" benefits to the user -- the user must pay Ricoh for KAF4 lens to use the feature. I don't know the gross profits on camera bodies versus lenses but would assume that lenses do make money (some believe that's where camera makers make the most money). Adding KAF4 to the older bodies may delay some purchases of newer bodies but it would certainly sell more lenses. If camera makers make the most money on lenses, they'd happily offer software for older bodies that sold more new lenses. But so far Ricoh has not done this which makes me suspect they can't.
The KAF4 finally gets Pentax to where Canon was over thirty years ago, when they abruptly dumped the FD-mount and went to the {Electro Focus} EF-mount. Canon users grumped, but they got over it, and they have had the benefits of a superior system for nearly thirty years - and for much of that time I was a Canon user, because I dumped the entire Pentax system rather than just dumping a mount; I finally came back to Pentax because of the bodies, and because I saw their lenses finally approaching the capabilities that pulled me away twenty years earlier. Would you rather have an abrupt fault line in Pentax mounts, as there is in Canon mounts??? I believe this petition has about as much likelihood of succeeding as does the "uncripple K-mount petition" which has was running when I joined here and just keeps futilely chugging along; Uncrippling the K-mount would require.added hardware, and I think the same is likely here.

added: Should we also have an "uncripple M42-mount" movement?? It has been years since a camera has had a plunger to stop-down the iris on an M42-mount lens in "auto" mode.

Last edited by reh321; 10-20-2016 at 09:25 AM. Reason: make wording consistent
10-20-2016, 12:01 PM   #164
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,703
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
The KAF4 finally gets Pentax to where Canon was over thirty years ago, when they abruptly dumped the FD-mount and went to the {Electro Focus} EF-mount. Canon users grumped, but they got over it, and they have had the benefits of a superior system for nearly thirty years - and for much of that time I was a Canon user, because I dumped the entire Pentax system rather than just dumping a mount; I finally came back to Pentax because of the bodies, and because I saw their lenses finally approaching the capabilities that pulled me away twenty years earlier. Would you rather have an abrupt fault line in Pentax mounts, as there is in Canon mounts??? I believe this petition has about as much likelihood of succeeding as does the "uncripple K-mount petition" which has was running when I joined here and just keeps futilely chugging along; Uncrippling the K-mount would require.added hardware, and I think the same is likely here.

added: Should we also have an "uncripple M42-mount" movement?? It has been years since a camera has had a plunger to stop-down the iris on an M42-mount lens in "auto" mode.
The difference is that KAF4 has nothing to do with AF but is about electronic control of apperture that only matter in video and work only if the lens is designed for it. Additionnally, because bodies are fully compatible with KAF3 and KAF2, you can safely ignore KAF4 until you decide to buy a KAF4 lens. As there a single KAF4 consumer grade lens currently and that all, and as that lens has a perfect equivalent in KAF2, there no presure at all to upgrade or switch.

KAF4 isn't a big change and KAF4 has no negative impact on customers.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 10-20-2016 at 12:07 PM.
10-20-2016, 12:13 PM   #165
Site Supporter
Zygonyx's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Ile de France
Posts: 3,072
QuoteOriginally posted by boriscleto Quote
But, since Ricoh won't say why they won't or can't update the K-3 and older cameras, all we have is a useless speculation thread.
They said they couldn't answer.
If you are optimist, that leaves the eventuality to convince them.

Btw, i am surprised no-one did dress the breakdown of all the non-Cassandra & non-trolling folks having expressed their whishes here.

Seems no-one wants to move from whining talks to action....
Are we all frenchies ?

Last edited by Zygonyx; 10-20-2016 at 12:55 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
aperture, camera, cameras, compatibility, doubt, dslr, firmware, hope, k-3, k-3ii, k3, k3ii, k5, k50, kaf4, kaf4 firmware, line, pentax, photography, ricoh, series, users
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
HSS triggers for k3 and k5 sunilsookhoo Flashes, Lighting, and Studio 44 06-01-2016 01:41 AM
K3 Firmware upgrade problems Help Please Real Ale Pentax K-3 9 03-29-2016 07:35 PM
Urgently need help with firmware update K3 please ! jpzk Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 9 08-12-2015 08:58 PM
Firmware for k50 Gerrys Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 2 09-02-2014 10:38 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:28 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top